Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
a lot of rain from seattle right down through portland, oregon. and stretching down in to california, as well. there could be some delays in the seattle area. anyone traveling through the mountain passes we are seeing several inches of snow. been raining and snowing out that way since last weekend. so, travel troubles continue in the northwest but everywhere else we are seeing a good amount of sunshine for what's left of the travel this evening. tonight looks clear and not too cold so icy patches not an issue but tomorrow it will actually be a white thanksgiving across portions of northern north dakota, northern minnesota. but elsewhere, again, seeing sunshine. a couple of showers possible through the chicago area. nothing that should create too too many delays and still a nuisance but most people will already be in their destination getting to thanksgiving and then friday some of that lighter rain starting to spread eastward. otherwise, thanksgiving looks good. >> thanks so much for that. >>> for more on holiday travel, we're joined by wendy saks. toure? >> let's talk about the bigg
, congressman from california. they both gave thifr interpretations. peter king said petraeus said he didn't know who are on when the cia intelligence talking points were edited, and shift said that petraeus said that the reason they were edited was to protect classified information. now, i talked to a former cia counterintelligence official today who said that both of those aassessessments can't rea live in the same word, so maybe there's some misinterpretation of what petraeus said. you can't believe on the one hand petraeus didn't know why the talking points were edited and on the other he had a perfectly good explanation for why the points were edited. make we'll get more on that. i think that we have a deeper understanding here after today about why david petraeus so badly want upped to come out and set the record straight. he didn't want on record that cia intelligence was bad and that was the reason. so that "wall street journal" report we saw yesterday talking about petraeus in his final days at the cia really wanting to come out and talk publicly. we have a greater sense of why th
, california striking down their three-strikes law. that says let's not have nonviolent drug offenders go away to jail for a long time. judges and police say this is a losing battle. let's move towards treatment and decriminalization and treat it like alcohol rather than prohibition and criminalization. we have a mexican president saying, hey, let's look at a different way to treat this thing. let's talk about what he recently said. in favor of opening a new debate in the strategy in the way we fight drug traffickings. it's clear after several decades we have more drug consumption, drug use, drug trafficking. things are not working. a change in the drug policy would have a massive impact on the economy and on crime in both north america and throughout south america, and would lead the way and open the path toward a more humane immigration policy and people in america accepting them. >> i think you're right. it's been interesting. as things have moved politically in terms of the war on drugs, we've also, of course, seen after this election potential movement on comprehensive immigration reform.
those. california reformed its three strikes law which had sent millions of monoviol nonviolent users to jails for decades. it's dawning on voters, judges cops, politicians that imprisoning people doesn't work. after all the billions spent and the millions of arrests and incarcerated people, drugs remain cheap, potent and easily purchased and the financial and spiritual cost of imprisoning more people than any other nation in the world is not sustainable. our next guest wrote a great new york magazine cover story about the future of the war on druks titled "the truce on drugs." we can only hope. benjamin wallace wells, ho aw a you, sir? >> i'm great. >> i'm thrilled by the movement away from prohibition. not because i want to get high. not because there's people who want to get high and can't because it's illegal, that's certainly not the case. but because it does not work when we treat marijuana differently from alcohol. is that correct? >> i think that is correct. one of the things you've seen just in the last five years is a movement of the position that the war on drugs has failed
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)